Hi Joshua,

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:55:22PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Joshua N Pritikin <jpriti...@pobox.com> 
> > wrote:
> > > I assume somebody familiar with GIT's code base could make this
> > > change in about 10 minutes.
> >
> > Can you elaborate how you come to that estimate?
> Hm, a false belief in the general awesomeness of GIT developers?

No, a false belief in your own shortcomings, as you thought it would be
easier to address your wishes for somebody else than you.

> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 02:25:19PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Joshua N Pritikin <jpriti...@pobox.com> 
> > wrote:
> > > As of GIT 2.8.1, if you do an interactive rebase and get some conflict
> > > in the stack of patches then the commit with the conflict is buried in
> > > 4-5 lines of output. It is visually difficult to immediately pick out
> > > which commit did not apply cleanly. I suggest highlighting the 1 line
> > > commit summary in red or green or some color to help it stand out from
> > > all the other output.
> > >
> > > I decided to suggest this change after I realized that I probably
> > > skipped a commit during an interactive rebase instead of resolving the
> > > conflict. I knew I had to skip some commit so I assumed that I just need
> > > to skip without reading the commit summary carefully. Now it is 7-15
> > > days after I did the erroneous rebase. I had to spend a few hours today
> > > with GIT's archaeology tools to find the lost code.
> > 
> > Looking at the actual code, this is not as easy as one might assume, 
> > because rebase is written in shell. (One of the last remaining large 
> > commands in shell), and there is no color support in the die(..) 
> > function.
> I'm sorry to hear that.
> > However IIUC currently rebase is completely rewritten/ported to C 
> > where it is easier to add color support as we do have some color 
> > support in there already.
> Sounds great. Is there a beta release that I can try out?

There is no release as such, unless you count Git for Windows v2.10.0.

But you can try the `interactive-rebase` branch of
https://github.com/dscho/git; please note, though, that my main aim was to
be as faithful as possible in the conversion (modulo speed, of course).

> Also, I have another wishlist item for (interactive) rebase.

Hmm. You know, I cannot say that I am a fan of wishlists for Git, unless
the originator of said wishlist takes on their responsibility as an Open
Source user to make their wishes come true.

But maybe I read it all wrong and you do want to make this happen
yourself, and you simply want a little advice how to go about it?

> Sometimes I do a rebase to fix some tiny thing 10-15 commits from HEAD.
> Maybe only 1 file is affected and there are no merge conflicts, but when
> rebase reapplies all the commits, the timestamps of lots of unmodified
> files change even though they are unmodified compared to before the
> rebase.

Well, they *were* modified, right?

A workaround would be to create a new worktree using the awesome `git
worktree` command, perform the rebase there (on an unnamed branch -- AKA
"detached HEAD", no relation to Helloween), and then come back to the
original worktree and reset --hard to the new revision. That reset would
detect that there are actually no changes required to said files.

> Since the modification times are used by 'make' to compute dependencies, 
> this creates a lot of useless recompilation that slows things down. It 
> would be great if rebase only changed the timestamps of files that were 
> actually modified.

Rebase will always have to change those timestamps. Because it really
changes those files. So the mtimes *need* to be updated. As far as rebase
is concerned, it does not matter that the final contents are identical to
*some* previous version...


Reply via email to